^English please

 

He chose not to use any values inbetween 120 and his max because he has made his tune linear above cruise conditions.

One of the cool things about moving to SD is that you can literally make it fit whatever you can understand. If you want to you can just make load to kpa 1:1, and in fact this is even a good thing for cars with big turbos. My assumption is that in l2r99gst's experience he found little variation in the way that load corresponded to map above that area so he could focus his bins on cruise and part throttle and just tune out and higher load discrepancies with the fuel map.


As for the VE table. 100% VE IMO should be the maximum total VE of your car. Motor VE certainly can in certain conditions break 100% but that isn't what that table is for. I imagine it is perfectly fine to go over 100% in that table but if I understand correctly that wasn't how it was designed. AFAIK there aren't any negative ramifications to going over 100%VE on the table it just isn't necessary and at least for me it would make my head hurt when I tried to wrap my mind around how load works for that car.

 

I'm doing this for cruise, DD, part throttle, not so much WOT. Which would be the best set up for what I'm looking for? Something like yours or lr2? So, if I do it somewhat like lr2's map, it will be focused on drive ability. Then I'm assuming the ECU "figures" out the range in between 120 and the max value for the WOT pulls. FWIW, I mostly use this car for autox, so I'm not sure if that should play a role in how I scale my table. So, I guess I want the best of both worlds, perfect drive ability and an accurate WOT pull for autox.

 

the_mork's explanation for my bin selection was basically correct. In troubleshooting the jumpy IPW issue, I wanted the most resolution with map in the part throttle/transition areas, cruising under vacuum and transition to boost.

For the boost portions, I will already be WOT, so there isn't going to be much variation in map (throttle). So, in those areas, I use the RPM VE table for further VE tuning. The_mork mentioned that I can use the fuel map, which is also true, but we have another VE table, the RPM VE table, for this.

If we used the 'easy speed density' method described by John, then you would have to use the fuel map, depening on what the final Hz value in your maf smoothing/scaling table is.

 

I simply have map to load as 1:1 from 120 to 408 kpa. The ECU doesn't 'figure' anything out. All that basically means is that any number between 120 and 408 is mapped out at 1:1. So, you can think of that map as having every number from 120 to 408, with the same exact number mapped to it. Basically a 100% map VE. Any VE correction from that point is then adjusted using the RPM VE table.

So, if you find that your VE is 80% at 7500 RPM at 20 psi, then you would put 80% in your RPM VE table for 7500. The total VE the ECU uses is map VE (100% in this case) * RPM VE (80% in this case), for a final VE of 80%.

Hopefully that makes some sense.


Eric

 

Finally, I get it. Thank you all very the very simplistic break down for my simple mind. That makes perfect sense. Now I know how to tune SD and what to adjust. This has made my day. My trouble spots with my car are part throttle and let off/on jerkiness, idle here and there.
So I think what I'm going to do is, scale my VE map like Lr's and then asdjust RPM on WOT as needed for target AF.
Just wondering if this conversion helps with idle cold starts on E85 at all. That would just be an added bonus to this whole thing.
Now....where can I find an adapter for my AEM filter to the pipe w/out the MAF? Hmm.

 

Just wondering why there couldn't be more "lines" added like the RPM table to the MAP VE table so you could have it fully tuned at every point. Or would that just be overkill and is not really necessary.

 

I would actually like a full 3D table. But, that's up to the coders.

 

I really don't think a 3d is necessary. I'm running on what they have now and it seems plenty sufficient for my car and my fuel setup. Simpler to me is better.

 

I think a 3d map would have kicked my *** when I first started to tune this thing. Now I imagine I wouldn't have a problem but it is a daunting thing for someone still struggling with understanding wtf is going on and why the numbers are what they are or what they need to be.

Is anyone else having issues with ugly leanness on cold starts?

 

Yes, and I suspect it's related to some of the problems l2r99gst was seeing at low airflow/RPM levels.

 

I read through the first few pages of that and it didn't sound like my problem though I never ran a log under the conditions that he described. It is only a problem at cold start and it is persistent even at medium and higher flow as long as the car is cold.

 

is there a scaling for a GM 3 bar, for ecuflash, anywhere in this thread?

 

First page, post #2.

 

With regards to 2D vs. 3D mapping and how its more simple. I'm sure it works great. But if there is going to be more development put into this, I'd personally say that doing 3D mapping would be better, yet can still be VERY simple. You can convert the 2D map into a 3D map with a very simple excel spread sheet.

It just increases the capabilities you have to tune the car more thoroughly.